America will start its recovery...

Jarod said:
Ive not read the book, but I dont see her speaking style as authoritarian. As far as the health care plan, I agree with it. Here is why. The major problem that affects those of us responsable enough to carry haalth insurance.. is that we end up paying for those who do not carry health insurance. We as a nation will not allow people to die on the streets when health care is available, just over an issue of money, at least not outright. Reconizing that, I am for requireing as many people as possable to pay for a basic health care policy in case they get sick, so they dont end up costing the rest of us a lot of money.
Click to expand...

well then, take that a step further. I suggest as part of the plan that all people overweight should pay three times what I have to. Because I am tired of paying for all the fat lazy people that don't work out or eat healthy. They jack up the costs of healthcare for all of us. Insurance companies currently charge more for people who smoke.... lets extend that to anyone who is fat.
 
Jarod said:
You got a better plan, at least she has a plan.
Click to expand...

I know she has a plan. You asked for an example of her being authoritarian. Now remember back to when she tried to implement Hillarycare in Billys first term. Tell me how it is that you do not see the authoritarian style she imposed in that.
 
Jarod said:
Why is it any different than Social Security?
Click to expand...

Morally there is not a whole lot of difference. The primary difference is that social security actually addressed the problem (lack of savings, lack of old age insurance). Hillary Care does not address the problem. Our problem is not a lack of insurance but rapidly increasing costs. Forcing people to buy insurance will only exacerbate the problem.
 
Hillary doesn't seem to have learned much from her first foray into healthcare.

You need to find a way to pay for something that big. It's not enough just to say "let's cover everyone." She offers nothing in the way of actually paying for it.
 
regardless it doesnt matter. she cant possible win at this point. "No matter how one slices the election results from last night, there's no denying that Obama is the statistical front-runner. He's got a 100-plus pledged delegate lead and even has the lead if you factor in superdelegates. Here's our math: The NBC News election unit hard count stands at 1078 to 969. If you factor in the unallocated pledged delegates, our estimate rises to approximately 1128 to 1009 in Obama's favor (margin of error +/- 5 delegates). Toss in the superdelegates and Obama's lead is 1306 to 1270 (again +/- 5 delegates). What does this mean? For Clinton to overtake Obama for the pledged delegate lead -- which we think is the single most important statistic for the superdelegates to decide their vote -- she'll have to win 55% of the remaining delegates. Assuming next week goes Obama's way in Wisconsin and Hawaii, that percentage rises to 57%. Toss in likely Obama victories in Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, then Clinton's percentage need tops 60% of the remaining delegates available. And this is simply for her to regain the pledged delegate lead? *** Staying on the statistical front: Check out these cumulative vote totals for primaries and caucuses to date:

States Awarding Delegates
Total Vote %
Obama 9,373,334 50%
Clinton 8,674,779 46%
Others 726,095 4%

With Florida
Total Vote %
Obama 9,942,375 49%
Clinton 9,531,987 46%
Others 984,236 4%

With Florida and Michigan
Total Vote %
Obama 9,942,375 47%
Clinton 9,860,138 47%
Others 1,249,922 6%

"
 
Onceler said:
Hillary doesn't seem to have learned much from her first foray into healthcare.

You need to find a way to pay for something that big. It's not enough just to say "let's cover everyone." She offers nothing in the way of actually paying for it.
Click to expand...

I am betting the phrase "tax the rich" will eventually work its way into the plan. :)
 
The problem is the market has been fucked up by the government. People have no reason at all to conserve or compare costs. We need to find ways to encourage that behavior. All else is just going to lead us to socialized healthcare or government monopsony healthcare (which is likely to end in socialized care).
 
Onceler said:
Hillary doesn't seem to have learned much from her first foray into healthcare.

You need to find a way to pay for something that big. It's not enough just to say "let's cover everyone." She offers nothing in the way of actually paying for it.
Click to expand...

by my math the first baby boomers begin to collect social security this year. You got a major problem with social secuiry already for the peak time of the boomers collection.. How can we as a nation possibly dive headfirst into hillary care.

im all for healthcare for all. But this needs to be a pragmatic ans systematic well thought out plan that includes all the stake holders.. Not a top down authoritarian piss poor plan with limited analysis on the impact.
 
Chapdog said:
she signed a document with obama and edwards that stated she would take her name off the ballot of Michigan and not campaign in Florida. she 'forgot' to take name of Michigan. and was only 'fundraising' in FL during the primary.

i mean come on man... shes the resurrection of Nixon campaign politics.
Click to expand...

Thats not the same thing as pledging to not ask them to count.

I live here in Florida and saw no campaigning on the part of any Democrat.
 
in terms of Michigan and Florida.. they either DONT count them as they were supposed to, or they should re-do the primaries.
 
RStringfield said:
Morally there is not a whole lot of difference. The primary difference is that social security actually addressed the problem (lack of savings, lack of old age insurance). Hillary Care does not address the problem. Our problem is not a lack of insurance but rapidly increasing costs. Forcing people to buy insurance will only exacerbate the problem.
Click to expand...

One of the main reasons for increasing costs is the lack of insured payees. the cost gets shifted such that when an insured gets health care, they tack on the cost of the health care they provided to 5 others who did not have heathl care. Its how an asprin becomes a $6.00 asprin.
 
Jarod said:
One of the main reasons for increasing costs is the lack of insured payees. the cost gets shifted such that when an insured gets health care, they tack on the cost of the health care they provided to 5 others who did not have heathl care. Its how an asprin becomes a $6.00 asprin.
Click to expand...

No, that is not correct. The market does not allow for pushing costs in such ways unless the cost is completely beyond the control of the supplier...edit here... and demand is inelastic. In this case the reasons this occurs are... 1) the government forcing suppliers as you noted; 2) the hiding of cost from the buyer.

Too much insurance seperating the buyer from the supplier is the primary cause of the spiraling costs.
 
Last edited:
RStringfield said:
No, that is not correct. The market does not allow for pushing costs in such ways unless the cost is completely beyond the control of the supplier. In this case the reasons this occurs are... 1) the government forcing suppliers as you noted; 2) the hiding of cost from the buyer.

Too much insurance seperating the buyer from the supplier is the primary cause of the spiraling costs.
Click to expand...

You give too much credit to "the market", especally when it comes to healthcare.
 
Jarod said:
You give too much credit to "the market", especally when it comes to healthcare.
Click to expand...

I guess, I could come back with "you give too much credit to government intrusions in the market, especially when it comes to healthcare." But that really does not get us anywhere.

Your comment is not responsive. Do you have anything of substance to counter the point that hiding costs from the consumer leads to waste, over consumption and general apathy?
 
RStringfield said:
I guess, I could come back with "you give too much credit to government intrusions in the market, especially when it comes to healthcare." But that really does not get us anywhere.

Your comment is not responsive. Do you have anything of substance to counter the point that hiding costs from the consumer leads to waste, over consumption and general apathy?
Click to expand...
qft
 
RStringfield said:
I guess, I could come back with "you give too much credit to government intrusions in the market, especially when it comes to healthcare." But that really does not get us anywhere.

Your comment is not responsive. Do you have anything of substance to counter the point that hiding costs from the consumer leads to waste, over consumption and general apathy?
Click to expand...

QFFT!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top